<pre>Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                         R. Barnes
Request for Comments: 6280                                   M. Lepinski
BCP: 160                                                BBN Technologies
Updates: <a href="./rfc3693">3693</a>, <a href="./rfc3694">3694</a>                                            A. Cooper
Category: Best Current Practice                                J. Morris
ISSN: 2070-1721                        Center for Democracy &amp; Technology
                                                           H. Tschofenig
                                                  Nokia Siemens Networks
                                                          H. Schulzrinne
                                                     Columbia University
                                                               July 2011


           <span class="h1">An Architecture for Location and Location Privacy</span>
                        <span class="h1">in Internet Applications</span>

Abstract

   Location-based services (such as navigation applications, emergency
   services, and management of equipment in the field) need geographic
   location information about Internet hosts, their users, and other
   related entities.  These applications need to securely gather and
   transfer location information for location services, and at the same
   time protect the privacy of the individuals involved.  This document
   describes an architecture for privacy-preserving location-based
   services in the Internet, focusing on authorization, security, and
   privacy requirements for the data formats and protocols used by these
   services.

Status of This Memo

   This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   BCPs is available in <a href="./rfc5741#section-2">Section&nbsp;2 of RFC 5741</a>.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6280">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6280</a>.









<span class="grey">Barnes, et al.            Best Current Practice                 [Page 1]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6280">RFC 6280</a>             Internet Location Architecture            July 2011</span>


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp78">BCP 78</a> and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (<a href="http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info">http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info</a>) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.





































<span class="grey">Barnes, et al.            Best Current Practice                 [Page 2]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6280">RFC 6280</a>             Internet Location Architecture            July 2011</span>


Table of Contents

   <a href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction ....................................................<a href="#page-3">3</a>
      <a href="#section-1.1">1.1</a>. Binding Rules to Data ......................................<a href="#page-4">4</a>
      <a href="#section-1.2">1.2</a>. Location-Specific Privacy Risks ............................<a href="#page-5">5</a>
      <a href="#section-1.3">1.3</a>. Privacy Paradigms ..........................................<a href="#page-6">6</a>
   <a href="#section-2">2</a>. Terminology Conventions .........................................<a href="#page-7">7</a>
   <a href="#section-3">3</a>. Overview of the Architecture ....................................<a href="#page-7">7</a>
      <a href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>. Basic Geopriv Scenario .....................................<a href="#page-8">8</a>
      <a href="#section-3.2">3.2</a>. Roles and Data Formats ....................................<a href="#page-10">10</a>
   <a href="#section-4">4</a>. The Location Life Cycle ........................................<a href="#page-12">12</a>
      <a href="#section-4.1">4.1</a>. Positioning ...............................................<a href="#page-13">13</a>
           <a href="#section-4.1.1">4.1.1</a>. Determination Mechanisms and Protocols .............<a href="#page-14">14</a>
           <a href="#section-4.1.2">4.1.2</a>. Privacy Considerations for Positioning .............<a href="#page-16">16</a>
           <a href="#section-4.1.3">4.1.3</a>. Security Considerations for Positioning ............<a href="#page-16">16</a>
      <a href="#section-4.2">4.2</a>. Location Distribution .....................................<a href="#page-17">17</a>
           <a href="#section-4.2.1">4.2.1</a>. Privacy Rules ......................................<a href="#page-17">17</a>
           <a href="#section-4.2.2">4.2.2</a>. Location Configuration .............................<a href="#page-19">19</a>
           <a href="#section-4.2.3">4.2.3</a>. Location References ................................<a href="#page-20">20</a>
           <a href="#section-4.2.4">4.2.4</a>. Privacy Considerations for Distribution ............<a href="#page-21">21</a>
           <a href="#section-4.2.5">4.2.5</a>. Security Considerations for Distribution ...........<a href="#page-23">23</a>
      <a href="#section-4.3">4.3</a>. Location Use ..............................................<a href="#page-24">24</a>
           <a href="#section-4.3.1">4.3.1</a>. Privacy Considerations for Use .....................<a href="#page-25">25</a>
           <a href="#section-4.3.2">4.3.2</a>. Security Considerations for Use ....................<a href="#page-25">25</a>
   <a href="#section-5">5</a>. Security Considerations ........................................<a href="#page-25">25</a>
   <a href="#section-6">6</a>. Example Scenarios ..............................................<a href="#page-28">28</a>
      <a href="#section-6.1">6.1</a>. Minimal Scenario ..........................................<a href="#page-28">28</a>
      <a href="#section-6.2">6.2</a>. Location-Based Web Services ...............................<a href="#page-29">29</a>
      <a href="#section-6.3">6.3</a>. Emergency Calling .........................................<a href="#page-31">31</a>
      <a href="#section-6.4">6.4</a>. Combination of Services ...................................<a href="#page-32">32</a>
   <a href="#section-7">7</a>. Glossary .......................................................<a href="#page-35">35</a>
   <a href="#section-8">8</a>. Acknowledgements ...............................................<a href="#page-38">38</a>
   <a href="#section-9">9</a>. References .....................................................<a href="#page-38">38</a>
      <a href="#section-9.1">9.1</a>. Normative References ......................................<a href="#page-38">38</a>
      <a href="#section-9.2">9.2</a>. Informative References ....................................<a href="#page-38">38</a>

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>.  Introduction</span>

   Location-based services (applications that require information about
   the geographic location of an individual or device) are becoming
   increasingly common on the Internet.  Navigation and direction
   services, emergency services, friend finders, management of equipment
   in the field, and many other applications require geographic location
   information about Internet hosts, their users, and other related
   entities.  As the accuracy of location information improves and the
   expense of calculating and obtaining it declines, the distribution
   and use of location information in Internet-based services will
   likely become increasingly pervasive.  Ensuring that location



<span class="grey">Barnes, et al.            Best Current Practice                 [Page 3]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6280">RFC 6280</a>             Internet Location Architecture            July 2011</span>


   information is transmitted and accessed in a secure and privacy-
   protective way is essential to the future success of these services,
   as well as the minimization of the privacy harms that could flow from
   their wide deployment and use.

   Standards for communicating location information over the Internet
   have an important role to play in providing a technical basis for
   privacy and security protection.  This document describes a
   standardized privacy- and security-focused architecture for location-
   based services in the Internet: the Geopriv architecture.  The
   central component of the Geopriv architecture is the location object,
   which is used to convey both location information about an individual
   or device and user-specified privacy rules governing that location
   information.  As location information moves through its life cycle --
   positioning, distribution, and use by its ultimate recipient(s) --
   Geopriv provides mechanisms to secure the integrity and
   confidentiality of location objects and to ensure that location
   information is only transmitted in compliance with the user's privacy
   rules.

   The goals of this document are two-fold: First, the architecture
   described revises and expands on the basic Geopriv Requirements [<a href="#ref-2" title="&quot;Geopriv Requirements&quot;">2</a>]
   [<a href="#ref-3" title="&quot;Threat Analysis of the Geopriv Protocol&quot;">3</a>], in order to clarify how these privacy concerns and the Geopriv
   architecture apply to use cases that have arisen since the
   publication of those documents.  Second, this document provides a
   general introduction to Geopriv and Internet location-based services,
   and is useful as a good first document for readers new to Geopriv.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-1.1" href="#section-1.1">1.1</a>.  Binding Rules to Data</span>

   A central feature of the Geopriv architecture is that location
   information is always bound to privacy rules to ensure that entities
   that receive location information are informed of how they may use
   it.  These rules can convey simple directives ("do not share my
   location with others"), or more robust preferences ("allow my spouse
   to know my exact location all of the time, but only allow my boss to
   know it during work hours").  By creating a structure to convey the
   user's preferences along with location information, the likelihood
   that those preferences will be honored necessarily increases.  In
   particular, no recipient of the location information can disavow
   knowledge of users' preferences for how their location may be used.
   The binding of privacy rules to location information can convey
   users' desire for and expectations of privacy, which in turn helps to
   bolster social and legal systems' protection of those expectations.







<span class="grey">Barnes, et al.            Best Current Practice                 [Page 4]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6280">RFC 6280</a>             Internet Location Architecture            July 2011</span>


   Binding of usage rules to sensitive information is a common way of
   protecting information.  Several emerging schemes for expressing
   copyright information provide for rules to be transmitted together
   with copyrighted works.  The Creative Commons [<a href="#ref-28">28</a>] model is the most
   prominent example, allowing an owner of a work to set four types of
   rules ("Attribution", "Noncommercial", "No Derivative Works", and
   "ShareAlike") governing the subsequent use of the work.  After the
   author sets these rules, the rules are conveyed together with the
   work itself, so that every recipient is aware of the copyright terms.

   Classification systems for controlling sensitive documents within an
   organization are another example.  In these systems, when a document
   is created, it is marked with a classification such as "SECRET" or
   "PROPRIETARY".  Each recipient of the document knows from this
   marking that the document should only be shared with other people who
   are authorized to access documents with that marking.  Classification
   markings can also convey other sorts of rules, such as a
   specification for how long the marking is valid (a declassification
   date).  The United States Department of Defense guidelines for
   classification [<a href="#ref-4" title="&quot;National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual&quot;">4</a>] provide one example.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-1.2" href="#section-1.2">1.2</a>.  Location-Specific Privacy Risks</span>

   While location-based services raise some privacy concerns that are
   common to all forms of personal information, many of them are
   heightened, and others are uniquely applicable in the context of
   location information.

   Location information is frequently generated on or by mobile devices.
   Because individuals often carry their mobile devices with them,
   location data may be collected everywhere and at any time, often
   without user interaction, and it may potentially describe both what a
   person is doing and where he or she is doing it.  For example,
   location data can reveal the fact that an individual was at a
   particular medical clinic at a particular time.  The ubiquity of
   location information may also increase the risks of stalking and
   domestic violence if perpetrators are able to use (or abuse)
   location-based services to gain access to location information about
   their victims.

   Location information is also of particular interest to governments
   and law enforcers around the world.  The existence of detailed
   records of individuals' movements should not automatically facilitate
   the ability for governments to track their citizens, but in some
   jurisdictions, laws dictating what government agents must do to
   obtain location data are either non-existent or out of date.





<span class="grey">Barnes, et al.            Best Current Practice                 [Page 5]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6280">RFC 6280</a>             Internet Location Architecture            July 2011</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-1.3" href="#section-1.3">1.3</a>.  Privacy Paradigms</span>

   Traditionally, the extent to which data about individuals enjoys
   privacy protections on the Internet has largely been decided by the
   recipients of the data.  Internet users may or may not be aware of
   the privacy practices of the entities with whom they share data.
   Even if they are aware, they have generally been limited to making a
   binary choice between sharing data with a particular entity or not
   sharing it.  Internet users have not historically been granted the
   opportunity to express their own privacy preferences to the
   recipients of their data and to have those preferences honored.

   This paradigm is problematic because the interests of data recipients
   are often not aligned with the interests of data subjects.  While
   both parties may agree that data should be collected, used,
   disclosed, and retained as necessary to deliver a particular service
   to the data subject, they may not agree about how the data should
   otherwise be used.  For example, an Internet user may gladly provide
   his email address on a Web site to receive a newsletter, but he may
   not want the Web site to share his email address with marketers,
   whereas the Web site may profit from such sharing.  Neither providing
   the address for both purposes nor deciding not to provide it is an
   optimal option from the Internet user's perspective.

   The Geopriv model departs from this paradigm for privacy protection.
   As explained above, location information can be uniquely sensitive.
   And as location-based services emerge and proliferate, they
   increasingly require standardized protocols for communicating
   location information between services and entities.  Recognizing both
   of these dynamics, Geopriv gives data subjects the ability to express
   their choices with respect to their own location information, rather
   than allowing the recipients of the information to define how it will
   be used.  The combination of heightened privacy risk and the need for
   standardization compelled the Geopriv designers to shift away from
   the prevailing Internet privacy model, instead empowering users to
   express their privacy preferences about the use of their location
   information.

   Geopriv does not, by itself, provide technical means through which it
   can be guaranteed that users' location privacy rules will be honored
   by recipients.  The privacy protections in the Geopriv architecture
   are largely provided by virtue of the fact that recipients of
   location information are informed of relevant privacy rules, and are
   expected to only use location information in accordance with those
   rules.  The distributed nature of the architecture inherently limits
   the degree to which compliance can be guaranteed and verified by
   technical means.  <a href="#section-5">Section 5</a> describes how some security mechanisms
   can address this to a limited extent.



<span class="grey">Barnes, et al.            Best Current Practice                 [Page 6]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-7" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6280">RFC 6280</a>             Internet Location Architecture            July 2011</span>


   By binding privacy rules to location information, however, Geopriv
   provides valuable information about users' privacy preferences, so
   that non-technical forces such as legal contracts, governmental
   consumer protection authorities, and marketplace feedback can better
   enforce those privacy preferences.  If a commercial recipient of
   location information, for example, violates the location rules bound
   to the information, the recipient can in a growing number of
   countries be charged with violating consumer or data protection laws.
   In the absence of a binding of rules with location information,
   consumer protection authorities would be less able to protect
   individuals whose location information has been abused.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>.  Terminology Conventions</span>

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a> [<a href="#ref-1" title="&quot;Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels&quot;">1</a>].

   Throughout the remainder of this document, capitalized terms defined
   in <a href="#section-7">Section 7</a> refer to Geopriv-specific roles and formats; the same
   terms used in all lowercase refer generically to those terms.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>.  Overview of the Architecture</span>

   This section provides an overview of the Geopriv architecture for the
   secure and private distribution of location information on the
   Internet.  We describe the three phases of the "location life cycle"
   -- positioning, distribution, and use -- and discuss how the
   components of the architecture fit within each phase.  The next
   section provides additional detail about how each phase can be
   achieved in a private and secure manner.

   The risks discussed in the previous section all arise from
   unauthorized disclosure or usage of location information.  Thus, the
   Geopriv architecture has two fundamental privacy goals:

   1.  Ensure that location information is distributed only to
       authorized entities, and

   2.  Provide information to those entities about how they are
       authorized to use the location information.

   If these two goals are met, all parties that receive location
   information will also receive directives about how they can use that
   information.  Privacy-preserving entities will only engage in
   authorized uses, and entities that violate privacy will do so
   knowingly, since they have been informed of what is authorized (and
   thus, implicitly, of what is not).



<span class="grey">Barnes, et al.            Best Current Practice                 [Page 7]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-8" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6280">RFC 6280</a>             Internet Location Architecture            July 2011</span>


   Privacy rules and their distribution are thus the central technical
   components of the privacy system, since they inform location
   recipients about how they are authorized to use that information.
   The two goals in the preceding paragraph are enabled by two classes
   of rules:

   1.  Access control rules: Rules that describe which entities may
       receive location information and in what form

   2.  Usage rules: Rules that describe what uses of location
       information are authorized

   Within this framework for privacy, security mechanisms provide
   support for the application of privacy rules.  For example,
   authentication mechanisms validate the identities of entities
   requesting a location (so that authorization and access-control
   policies can be applied), and confidentiality mechanisms protect
   location information en route between privacy-preserving entities.
   Security mechanisms can also provide assurances that are outside the
   purview of privacy by, for example, assuring location recipients that
   location information has been faithfully transmitted to them by its
   creator.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.1" href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>.  Basic Geopriv Scenario</span>

   As location information is transmitted among Internet hosts, it goes
   through a "location life cycle": first, the location is computed
   based on some external information (positioning), and then it is
   transmitted from one host to another (distribution) until finally it
   is used by a recipient (use).

   For example, suppose Alice is using a mobile device, she learns of
   her location from a wireless location service, and she wishes to
   share her location privately with her friends by way of a presence
   service.  Alice clearly needs to provide the presence server with her
   location and rules about which friends can be provided with her
   location.  To enable Alice's friends to preserve her privacy, they
   need to be provided with privacy rules.  Alice may tell some of her
   friends the rules directly, or she can have the presence server
   provide the rules to her friends when it provides them with her
   location.  In this way, every friend who receives Alice's location is
   authorized by Alice to receive it, and every friend who receives it
   knows the rules.  Good friends will obey the rules.  If a bad friend
   breaks them and Alice finds out, the bad friend cannot claim that he
   was unaware of the rules.






<span class="grey">Barnes, et al.            Best Current Practice                 [Page 8]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-9" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6280">RFC 6280</a>             Internet Location Architecture            July 2011</span>


   Some of Alice's friends will be interested in using Alice's location
   only for their own purposes, for example, to meet up with her or plot
   her location over time.  The usage rules that they receive direct
   them as to what they can or cannot do (for example, Alice might not
   want them keeping her location for more than, say, two weeks).

   Consider one friend, Bob, who wants to send Alice's location to some
   of his friends.  To operate in a privacy-protective way, Bob needs
   not only usage rules for himself, but also access control rules that
   describe who he can send information to and rules to give to the
   recipients.  If the rules he received from the presence server
   authorize him to give Alice's location to others, he may do so;
   otherwise, he will require additional rules from Alice before he is
   authorized to distribute her location.  If recipients who receive
   Alice's location from Bob want to distribute the location information
   further, they must go through the same process as Bob.

   The whole example is illustrated in the following figure:

   +----------+
   | Wireless |
   | Location |
   | Service  |                          Retrieve
   +----------+                      Access Control Rules
       |                      +--------------------------------+
       |                      | +--------------------------+   |
    Location                  | |        Access            |   |
       |                      | |     Control Rules        v   |
       |                      | |                         +-----+
       |                      | |                         | Bob |
       |                      | |                         |+---+|--&gt; ...
       |                      | |                  +-----&gt;||PC ||
   ...........                v |                  |      ++---++
   | +------+|            +----------+             |
   | |Mobile|+--Location-&gt;| Presence |--Location--&gt;|     +----------+
   | |Phone ||            | Server   |             |----&gt;| Friend-1 |
   | +------++---Rules---&gt;|          |---Rules----&gt;|     +----------+
   |  Alice  |            +----------+             |
   |   O     |                                     |
   |  /|\    |                                     |     +----------+
   |  / \    |                                     +----&gt;| Friend-2 |
   `---------'                                           +----------+

                     Figure 1: Basic Geopriv Scenario







<span class="grey">Barnes, et al.            Best Current Practice                 [Page 9]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-10" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6280">RFC 6280</a>             Internet Location Architecture            July 2011</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.2" href="#section-3.2">3.2</a>.  Roles and Data Formats</span>

   The above example illustrates the six basic roles in the Geopriv
   architecture:

   Target:   An individual or other entity whose location is sought in
      the Geopriv architecture.  In many cases, the Target will be the
      human user of a Device, but it can also be an object such as a
      vehicle or shipping container to which a Device is attached.  In
      some instances, the Target will be the Device itself.  The Target
      is the entity whose privacy Geopriv seeks to protect.  Alice is
      the Target in Figure 1.

   Device:   The physical device, such as a mobile phone, PC, or
      embedded micro-controller, whose location is tracked as a proxy
      for the location of a Target.  Alice's mobile phone is the Device
      in Figure 1.

   Rule Maker (RM):   Performs the role of creating rules governing
      access to location information for a Target.  In some cases, the
      Target performs the Rule Maker role (as is the case with Alice),
      and in other cases they are separate.  For example, a parent may
      serve as the Rule Maker when the Target is his child, or a
      corporate security officer may serve as the Rule Maker for devices
      owned by the corporation but used by employees.  The Rule Maker is
      also not necessarily the owner of the Device.  For example, a
      corporation may provide a Device to an employee but permit the
      employee to serve as the Rule Maker and set her own privacy rules.

   Location Generator (LG):   Performs the roles of initially
      determining or gathering the location of the Device and providing
      it to Location Servers.  Location Generators may be any sort of
      software or hardware used to obtain the Device's location.
      Examples include Global Positioning System (GPS) chips and
      cellular networks.  A Device may even perform the Location
      Generator role for itself; Devices capable of unassisted
      satellite-based positioning and Devices that accept manually
      entered location information are two examples.  The wireless
      location service plays the Location Generator role in Figure 1.

   Location Server (LS):   Performs the roles of receiving location
      information and rules, applying the rules to the location
      information to determine what other entities, if any, can receive
      location information, and providing the location to Location
      Recipients.  Location Servers receive location information from
      Location Generators and rules from Rule Makers, and then apply the
      rules to the location information.  Location Servers may not
      necessarily be "servers" in the colloquial sense of hosts in



<span class="grey">Barnes, et al.            Best Current Practice                [Page 10]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-11" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6280">RFC 6280</a>             Internet Location Architecture            July 2011</span>


      remote data centers servicing requests.  Rather, a Location Server
      can be any software or hardware component that distributes
      location information.  Examples include a server in an access
      network, a presence server, or a Web browser or other software
      running on a Device.  The above example includes three Location
      Servers: Alice's mobile phone, the presence service, and Bob's PC.

   Location Recipient (LR):   Performs the role of receiving location
      information.  A Location Recipient may ask for a location
      explicitly (by sending a query to a Location Server), or it may
      receive a location asynchronously.  The presence service, Bob,
      Friend-1, and Friend-2 are Location Recipients in Figure 1.

   In general, these roles may or may not be performed by physically
   separate entities, as demonstrated by the entities in Figure 1, many
   of which perform multiple roles.  It is not uncommon for the same
   entity to perform both the Location Generator and Location Server
   roles, or both the Location Recipient and Location Server roles.  A
   single entity may take on multiple roles simply by virtue of its own
   capabilities and the permissions provided to it.

   Although in the above example there is only a single Location
   Generator and a single Rule Maker, in some cases a Location Server
   may receive Location Objects from multiple Location Generators or
   Rules from multiple Rule Makers.  Likewise, a single Location
   Generator may publish location information to multiple Location
   Servers, and a single Location Recipient may receive Location Objects
   from multiple Location Servers.

   There is a close relationship between a Target and its Device.  The
   term "Device" is used when discussing protocol interactions, whereas
   the term "Target" is used when discussing generically the person or
   object being located and its privacy.  While in the example above
   there is a one-to-one relationship between the Target and the Device,
   Geopriv can also be used to convey location information about a
   device that is not directly linked to a single individual or object,
   such as a Device shared by multiple individuals.

   Two data formats are necessary within this architecture:

   Location Object (LO):   An object used to convey location information
      together with Privacy Rules.  Geopriv supports both geodetic
      location data (latitude, longitude, altitude, etc.) and civic
      location data (street, city, state, etc.).  Either or both types
      of location information may be present in a single LO (see the
      considerations in [<a href="#ref-5" title="&quot;GEOPRIV Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO) Usage Clarification, Considerations, and Recommendations&quot;">5</a>] for LOs containing multiple locations).
      Location Objects typically include some sort of identifier of the
      Target.



<span class="grey">Barnes, et al.            Best Current Practice                [Page 11]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-12" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6280">RFC 6280</a>             Internet Location Architecture            July 2011</span>


   Privacy Rule:   A directive that regulates an entity's activities
      with respect to location information, including the collection,
      use, disclosure, and retention of the location information.
      Privacy Rules describe which entities may obtain location
      information in what form (access control rules) and how location
      information may be used by an entity (usage rules).

   The whole example, using Geopriv roles and formats, is illustrated in
   the following figure:

   +----+
   | LG |
   +----+
     ^
     |
   Positioning
    Data
     |
     |    +------------Privacy Rules------------------&gt;+----+
     |    |                                      +----&gt;| LR |--&gt; ...
     |    |                                      |     | LS |
     v    |                                      |     +----+
   +-------+                                     |
   |Target |                +----+               |     +----+
   |Device |---------------&gt;| LR |---------------+----&gt;| LR |
   |  RM   |       LO       | LS |       LO      |     +----+
   |  LS   |                +----+               |
   +-------+                                     |
                                                 |     +----+
                                                 +----&gt;| LR |
                                                       +----+

                     Figure 2: Basic Geopriv Scenario

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>.  The Location Life Cycle</span>

   The previous section gave an example of how an individual's location
   can be distributed through the Internet.  In general, the location
   life cycle breaks down into three phases:

   1.  Positioning: A Location Generator determines the Device's
       location.

   2.  Distribution: Location Servers send location information to
       Location Recipients, which may in turn act as Location Servers
       and further distribute the location to other Location Recipients,
       possibly several times.




<span class="grey">Barnes, et al.            Best Current Practice                [Page 12]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-13" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6280">RFC 6280</a>             Internet Location Architecture            July 2011</span>


   3.  Use: A Location Recipient receives the location and uses it.

   Each of these phases involves a different set of Geopriv roles, and
   each has a different set of privacy and security implications.  The
   Geopriv roles are mapped onto the location life cycle in the figure
   below.

                               +----------+
                               |  Rule    |+
                               |  Maker(s)||
   Positioning                 |          ||
     Data                      +----------+|
       |                        +----------+
       |                            | Rules
       |                            |
       |                            |
       V                            V
   +----------+                +----------+                +----------+
   |Location  |  Location      | Location |+      LO       |Location  |
   |Generator |---------------&gt;| Server(s)||--------------&gt;|Recipient |
   |          |                |          ||               |          |
   +----------+                +----------+|               +----------+
                               +----------+
   &lt;-------------------------&gt;&lt;---------------------------&gt;&lt;-----------&gt;
    Positioning                Distribution                 Use

                       Figure 3: Location Life Cycle

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.1" href="#section-4.1">4.1</a>.  Positioning</span>

   Positioning is the process by which the physical location of the
   Device is computed, based on some observations about the Device's
   situation in the physical world.  (This process goes by several other
   names, including Location Determination or Sighting.)  The input to
   the positioning process is some information about the Device, and the
   outcome is that the LG knows the location of the Device.

   In this section, we give a brief taxonomy of current positioning
   systems, their requirements for protocol support, and the privacy and
   security requirements for positioning.











<span class="grey">Barnes, et al.            Best Current Practice                [Page 13]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-14" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6280">RFC 6280</a>             Internet Location Architecture            July 2011</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.1.1" href="#section-4.1.1">4.1.1</a>.  Determination Mechanisms and Protocols</span>

   While the specific positioning mechanisms that can be applied for a
   given Device are strongly dependent on the physical situation and
   capabilities of the Device, these mechanisms generally fall into the
   three categories described in detail below:

   o  Device-based

   o  Network-based

   o  Network-assisted

   As suggested by the above names, a positioning scheme can rely on the
   Device, an Internet-accessible resource (not necessarily a network
   operator), or a combination of the two.  For a given scheme, the
   nature of this reliance will dictate the protocol mechanisms needed
   to support it.

   With Device-based positioning mechanisms, the Device is capable of
   determining its location by itself.  This is the case for a manually
   entered location or for (unassisted) satellite-based positioning
   using a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS).  In these cases,
   the Device acts as its own LG, and there are no protocols required to
   support positioning beyond those that transmit the positioning data
   from the satellite to the user.

   In network-based positioning schemes, an external LG (an Internet
   host other than the Device) has access to sufficient information
   about the Device, through out-of-band channels, to establish the
   position of the Device.  The most common examples of this type of LG
   are entities that have a physical relationship to the Device (such as
   ISPs).  In wired networks, wiremap-based location is a network-based
   technique; in wireless networks, timing and signal-strength-based
   techniques that use measurements from base stations are considered to
   be network-based.  Large-scale IP-to-geo databases (for example,
   those based on WHOIS data or latency measurements) are also
   considered to be network-based positioning mechanisms.

   For network-based positioning as for Device-based, no protocols for
   communication between the Device and the LG are strictly necessary to
   support positioning, since positioning information is collected
   outside of the location distribution system (at lower layers of the
   network stack, for example).  This does not rule out the use of other
   Internet protocols (like the Simple Network Management Protocol
   (SNMP)) to collect inputs to the positioning process.  Rather, since
   these inputs can only be used by certain LGs to determine location,
   they are not controlled as private information.  Network-based



<span class="grey">Barnes, et al.            Best Current Practice                [Page 14]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-15" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6280">RFC 6280</a>             Internet Location Architecture            July 2011</span>


   positioning often provides location information to protocols by which
   the network informs a Device of its own location.  These are known as
   Location Configuration Protocols; see <a href="#section-4.2.2">Section 4.2.2</a> for further
   discussion.

   Network-assisted systems account for the greatest number and
   diversity of positioning schemes.  In these systems, the work of
   positioning is divided between the Device and an external LG via
   some communication (possibly over the Internet), typically in one of
   two ways:

   o  The Device provides measurements to the LG, or

   o  The LG provides assistance data to the Device.

   "Measurements" are understood to be observations about the Device's
   environment, ranging from wireless signal strengths to the Media
   Access Control (MAC) address of a first-hop router.  "Assistance" is
   the complement to measurement, namely the positioning information
   that enables the computation of location based on measurements.  A
   set of wireless base station locations (or wireless calibration
   information) would be an assistance datum, as would be a table that
   maps routers to buildings in a corporate campus.

   For example, wireless and wired networks can serve as the basis for
   network-assisted positioning.  In several current 802.11 positioning
   systems, the Device sends measurements (e.g., MAC addresses and
   signal strengths) to an LG, and the LG returns a location to the
   client.  In wired networks, the Device can send its MAC address to
   the LG, which can query the MAC-layer infrastructure to determine the
   switch and port to which that MAC address is connected, then query a
   wire map to determine the location at which the wire connected to
   that port terminates.

   As an aside, the common phrase "assisted GPS" ("assisted GNSS" more
   broadly) actually encompasses techniques that transmit both
   measurements and assistance data.  Systems in which the Device
   provides the LG with GNSS measurements are measurement-based, while
   those in which the assistance server provides ephemeris or almanac
   data are assistance-based in the above terminology.  (Those familiar
   with GNSS positioning will note that there are of course cases in
   which both of these interactions occur within a single location
   determination protocol, so the categories are not mutually
   exclusive.)

   Naturally, the exchange of measurement or positioning data between
   the Device and the LG requires a protocol over which the information
   is carried.  The structure of this protocol will depend on which of



<span class="grey">Barnes, et al.            Best Current Practice                [Page 15]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-16" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6280">RFC 6280</a>             Internet Location Architecture            July 2011</span>


   the two patterns a network-assisted scheme follows.  Conversely, the
   structure of the protocol will determine which of the two parties
   (the Device, the LG, or both) is aware of the Device's location at
   the end of the protocol interaction.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.1.2" href="#section-4.1.2">4.1.2</a>.  Privacy Considerations for Positioning</span>

   Positioning is the first point at which location may be associated
   with a particular Device and may be associated with the Target's
   identity.  Local identifiers, unlinked pseudonyms, or private
   identifiers that are not linked to the real identity of the Target
   should be used as forms of identity whenever possible.  This provides
   privacy protection by disassociating the location from the Target's
   identity before it is distributed.

   At the conclusion of the positioning process, the entity acting as
   the LG has the Device's location.  If the Device is performing the LG
   role, then both the Device and LG have it.  If the entity acting as
   the LG also performs the role of LS, the privacy considerations in
   <a href="#section-4.2.4">Section 4.2.4</a> apply.

   In some deployment scenarios, positioning functions and distribution
   functions may need to be provided by separate entities, in which case
   the LG and LS roles will not be performed by the same entity.  In
   this situation, the LG acts as a "dumb", non-privacy-aware
   positioning resource, and the LS provides the privacy logic necessary
   to support distribution (possibly with multiple LSes using the same
   LG).  In order to allow the privacy-unaware LG to distribute location
   information to these LSes while maintaining privacy, the relationship
   between the LG and its set of LSes MUST be tightly constrained
   (effectively "hard-wired").  That is, the LG MUST only provide
   location information to a small fixed set of LSes, and each of these
   LSes MUST comply with the requirements of <a href="#section-4.2.4">Section 4.2.4</a>.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.1.3" href="#section-4.1.3">4.1.3</a>.  Security Considerations for Positioning</span>

   Manipulation of the positioning process can expose location
   information through two mechanisms:

   1) A third party could guess or derive measurements about a specific
   device and use them to get the location of that Device.  To mitigate
   this risk, the LG SHOULD be able to authenticate and authorize
   devices providing measurements and, if possible, verify that the
   presented measurements are likely to be the actual physical values
   measured by that client.  These security procedures rely on the type
   of positioning being done, and may not be technically feasible in all
   cases.




<span class="grey">Barnes, et al.            Best Current Practice                [Page 16]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-17" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6280">RFC 6280</a>             Internet Location Architecture            July 2011</span>


   2) By eavesdropping, a third party may be able to obtain measurements
   sent by the Device itself that indicate the rough position of the
   Device.  To mitigate this risk, protocols used for positioning MUST
   provide confidentiality and integrity protections in order to prevent
   observation and modification of transmitted positioning data while en
   route between the Target and the LG.

   If an LG or a Target chooses to act as an LS, it inherits the
   security requirements for an LS, described in <a href="#section-4.2.5">Section 4.2.5</a>.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2" href="#section-4.2">4.2</a>.  Location Distribution</span>

   When an entity receives location information (from an LG or an LS)
   and redistributes it to other entities, it acts as an LS.  Location
   Distribution is the process by which one or more LSes provide LOs to
   LRs in a privacy-preserving manner.

   The role of an LS is thus two-fold: First, it must collect location
   information and Rules that control access to that information.  Rules
   can be communicated within an LO, within a protocol that carries LOs,
   or through a separate protocol that carries Rules.  Second, the LS
   must process requests for location information and apply the Rules to
   these requests in order to determine whether it is authorized to
   fulfill them by returning location information.

   An LS thus has at least two types of interactions with other hosts,
   namely receiving and sending LOs.  An LS may optionally implement a
   third interaction, allowing Rule Makers to provision it with Rules.
   The distinction between these two cases is important in practice,
   because it determines whether the LS has a direct relationship with a
   Rule Maker: An LS that accepts Rules directly from a Rule Maker has
   such a relationship, while an LS that acquires all its Rules through
   LOs does not.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2.1" href="#section-4.2.1">4.2.1</a>.  Privacy Rules</span>

   Privacy Rules are the central mechanism in Geopriv for maintaining a
   Target's privacy, because they provide a recipient of an LO (an LS or
   LR) with information on how the LO may be used.

   Throughout the Geopriv architecture, Privacy Rules are communicated
   in rules languages with a defined syntax and semantics.  For example,
   the Common Policy rules language has been defined [<a href="#ref-6" title="&quot;Common Policy: A Document Format for Expressing Privacy Preferences&quot;">6</a>] to provide a
   framework for broad-based rule specifications.  Geopriv Policy [<a href="#ref-7" title="&quot;Geolocation Policy: A Document Format for Expressing Privacy Preferences for Location Information&quot;">7</a>]
   defines a language for creating location-specific rules.  The XML
   Configuration Access Protocol (XCAP) [<a href="#ref-8" title="&quot;The Extensible Markup Language (XML) Configuration Access Protocol (XCAP)&quot;">8</a>] can be used as a protocol to
   install rules in both of these formats.




<span class="grey">Barnes, et al.            Best Current Practice                [Page 17]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-18" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6280">RFC 6280</a>             Internet Location Architecture            July 2011</span>


   Privacy Rules follow a default-deny pattern: an empty set of Rules
   implies that all requests for location information should be denied,
   except requests made by the Target itself.  Each Rule adds to the
   set, granting a specific permission.  Adding a Rule can only augment
   privacy protections because all Rules are positive grants of
   permission.

   The following are examples of Privacy Rules governing location
   distribution:

   o  Retransmit location information when requested from example.com.

   o  Retransmit only city and country.

   o  Retransmit location information with no less than a 100-meter
      radius of uncertainty.

   o  Retransmit location information only for the next two weeks.

   LSes enforce Privacy Rules in two ways: by denying requests for
   location information, or by transforming the location information
   before retransmitting it.

   LSes may also receive Rules governing location retention, such as
   "Retain location only for 48 hours".  Such Rules are simply
   directives about how long the Target's location information can be
   retained.

   Privacy Rules can govern the behavior of both LSes and LRs.  Rules
   that direct LSes about how to treat a Target's location information
   are known as Local Rules.  Local Rules are used internally by the LS
   to handle requests from LRs.  They are not distributed to LRs.

   Forwarded Rules, on the other hand, travel inside LOs and direct LSes
   and LRs about how to handle the location information they receive.
   Because the Rules themselves may reveal potentially sensitive
   information about the Target, only the minimal subset of Forwarded
   Rules necessary to handle the LO is distributed.













<span class="grey">Barnes, et al.            Best Current Practice                [Page 18]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-19" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6280">RFC 6280</a>             Internet Location Architecture            July 2011</span>


   An example can illustrate the interaction between Local Rules and
   Forwarded Rules.  Suppose Alice provides the following Local Rules to
   an LS:

   o  The LS may retransmit Alice's precise location to Bob, who in turn
      is permitted to retain the location information for one month.

   o  The LS may retransmit Alice's city, state, and country to Steve,
      who in turn is permitted to retain the location information for
      one hour.

   o  The LS may retransmit Alice's country to a photo-sharing Web site,
      which in turn is permitted to retain the location information for
      one year and retransmit it to any requesters.

   When Steve asks for Alice's location, the LS can transmit to Steve
   the limited location information (city, state, and country) along
   with Forwarded Rules instructing Steve to (a) not further retransmit
   Alice's location information, and (b) only retain the location
   information for one hour.  By only sending these specifically
   applicable Forwarded Rules to Steve (as opposed to the full set of
   Local Rules), the LS is protecting Alice's privacy by not disclosing
   to Steve that (for example) Alice allows Bob to obtain more precise
   location information than Alice allows Steve to receive.

   Geopriv is designed to be usable even by devices with constrained
   processing capabilities.  To ensure that Forwarded Rules can be
   processed on constrained devices, LOs are required to carry only a
   limited set of Forwarded Rules, with an option to reference a more
   robust set of external Rules.  The limited Rule set covers two
   privacy aspects: how long the Target's location may be retained
   ("Retention"), and whether or not the Target's location may be
   retransmitted ("Retransmission").  An LO may contain a pointer to
   more robust Rules, such as those shown in the set of four Rules at
   the beginning of this section.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2.2" href="#section-4.2.2">4.2.2</a>.  Location Configuration</span>

   Some entities performing the LG role are designed only to provide
   Targets with their own locations, as opposed to distributing a
   Target's location to others.  The process of providing a Target with
   its own location is known within Geopriv as Location Configuration.
   The term "Location Information Server" (LIS) is often used to
   describe the entity that performs this function.  However, a LIS may
   also perform other functions, such as providing a Target's location
   to other entities.





<span class="grey">Barnes, et al.            Best Current Practice                [Page 19]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-20" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6280">RFC 6280</a>             Internet Location Architecture            July 2011</span>


   A Location Configuration Protocol (LCP) [<a href="#ref-9" title="&quot;GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol: Problem Statement and Requirements&quot;">9</a>] is one mechanism that can
   be used by a Device to discover its own location from a LIS.  LCPs
   provide functions in the way they obtain, transport, and deliver
   location requests and responses between a LIS and a Device such that
   the LIS can trust that the location requests and responses handled
   via the LCP are in fact from/to the Target.  Several LCPs have been
   developed within Geopriv [<a href="#ref-10" title="&quot;Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Option for Coordinate-based Location Configuration Information&quot;">10</a>] [<a href="#ref-11" title="&quot;Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4 and DHCPv6) Option for Civic Addresses Configuration Information&quot;">11</a>] [<a href="#ref-12" title="&quot;Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) IPv4 and IPv6 Option for a Location Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)&quot;">12</a>] [<a href="#ref-13" title="&quot;HTTP-Enabled Location Delivery (HELD)&quot;">13</a>].

   A LIS whose sole purpose is to perform Location Configuration need
   only follow a simple privacy-preserving policy: transmit a Target's
   location only to the Target itself.  This is known as the "LCP
   policy".

   Importantly, if an LS is also serving in the role of LG and it has
   not been provisioned with Privacy Rules for a particular Target, it
   MUST follow the LCP policy, whether it is a LIS or not.  In the
   positioning phase, an entity serving the roles of both LG and LS that
   has not received Privacy Rules must follow this policy.  The same is
   true for any LS in the distribution phase.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2.3" href="#section-4.2.3">4.2.3</a>.  Location References</span>

   The location distribution process occurs through a series of
   transmissions of LOs: transmissions of location "by value".  Location
   "by value" can be expressed in terms of geodetic location data
   (latitude, longitude, altitude, etc.) and civic location data
   (street, city, state, etc.).

   A location can also be distributed "by reference", where a reference
   is represented by a URI that can be dereferenced to obtain the LO.
   This document summarizes the properties of location-by-reference that
   are discussed at length in [<a href="#ref-14" title="&quot;Requirements for a Location-by-Reference Mechanism&quot;">14</a>].

   Distribution of location-by-reference (distribution of location URIs)
   offers several benefits.  Location URIs are a more compact way of
   transmitting location information, since URIs are usually smaller
   than LOs.  A recipient of location information can make multiple
   requests to a URI over time to receive updated location information
   if the URI is configured to provide a fresh location rather than a
   single "snapshot".

   From a positioning perspective, location-by-reference can offer the
   additional benefit of "just in time" positioning.  If a location is
   distributed by reference, an entity acting as a combined LG/LS only
   needs to perform positioning operations when a recipient dereferences
   a previously distributed URI.





<span class="grey">Barnes, et al.            Best Current Practice                [Page 20]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-21" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6280">RFC 6280</a>             Internet Location Architecture            July 2011</span>


   From a privacy perspective, distributing a location as a URI instead
   of as an LO can help protect privacy by forcing each recipient of the
   location to request location information from the referenced LS,
   which can then apply access controls individually to each recipient.
   But the benefit provided here is contingent on the LS applying access
   controls.  If the LS does not apply an access control policy to
   requests for a location URI (in other words, if it enforces the
   "possession model" defined in [<a href="#ref-14" title="&quot;Requirements for a Location-by-Reference Mechanism&quot;">14</a>]), then transmitting a location URI
   presents the same privacy risks as transmitting the LO itself.
   Moreover, the use of location URIs without access controls can
   introduce additional privacy risks: If URIs are predictable, an
   attacker to whom the URI has not been sent may be able to guess the
   URI and use it to obtain the referenced LO.  To mitigate this,
   location URIs without access controls need to be constructed so that
   they contain a random component with sufficient entropy to make
   guessing infeasible.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2.4" href="#section-4.2.4">4.2.4</a>.  Privacy Considerations for Distribution</span>

   Location information MUST be accompanied by Rules throughout the
   distribution process.  Otherwise, a recipient will not know what uses
   are authorized, and will not be able to use the LO.  Consequently,
   LOs MUST be able to express Rules that convey appropriate
   authorizations.

   An LS MUST only accept Rules from authorized Rule Makers.  For an LS
   that receives Rules exclusively in LOs and has no direct relationship
   with a Rule Maker, this requirement is met by applying the Rules
   provided in an LO to the distribution of that LO.  For an LS with a
   direct relationship to a Rule Maker, this requirement means that the
   LS MUST be configurable with an RM authorization policy.  An LS
   SHOULD define a prescribed set of RMs that may provide Rules for a
   given Target or LO.  For example, an LS may only allow the Target to
   set Rules for itself, or it might allow an RM to set Rules for
   several Targets (e.g., a parent for children, or a corporate security
   officer for employees).

   No matter how Rules are provided to an LS, for each LO it receives,
   it MUST combine all Rules that apply to the LO into a Rule set that
   defines which transmissions are authorized, and it MUST transmit
   location information only in ways that are authorized by these Rules.

   An LS that receives Rules exclusively through LOs MUST examine the
   Rules that accompany a given LO in order to determine how the LS may
   use the LO.  If any Rules are included by reference, the LS SHOULD
   attempt to download them.  If the LO includes no Rules that allow the
   LS to transmit the LO to another entity, then the LS MUST NOT
   transmit the LO.  If the LO contains no Rules at all -- for example,



<span class="grey">Barnes, et al.            Best Current Practice                [Page 21]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-22" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6280">RFC 6280</a>             Internet Location Architecture            July 2011</span>


   if it is in a format with no Rules syntax -- then the LS MUST delete
   it.  Emergency services provide an exception in that Rules can be
   implicit; see [<a href="#ref-15" title="&quot;LoST: A Location-to-Service Translation Protocol&quot;">15</a>]).  If the LO included Rules by reference, but
   these Rules were not obtained for any reason, the LS MUST NOT
   transmit the LO and MUST adhere to the provided value in the
   retention-expires field.

   An LS that receives Rules both directly from one or more Rule Makers
   and through LOs MUST combine the Rules in a given LO with Rules it
   has received from the RMs.  The strategy the LS uses to combine these
   sets of Rules is a matter for local policy, depending on the relative
   priority that the LS grants to each source of Rules.  Some example
   policies are:

   Union:   A transmission of location information is authorized if it
      is authorized by either a rule in the LO or an RM-provided rule.

   Intersection:   A transmission of location information is authorized
      if it is authorized by both a rule in the LO and an RM-provided
      rule.

   RM Override:   A transmission of location information is authorized
      if it is authorized by an RM-provided rule, regardless of the LO
      Rules.

   LO Override:   A transmission of location information is authorized
      if it is authorized by an LO-provided rule, regardless of the RM
      Rules.

   The default combination policy for an LS that receives multiple rule
   sets is to combine them according to procedures in <a href="./rfc4745#section-10">Section&nbsp;10 of
   RFC 4745</a> [<a href="#ref-6" title="&quot;Common Policy: A Document Format for Expressing Privacy Preferences&quot;">6</a>].  Privacy rules always grant access; i.e., the default
   is to deny access, and rules specify conditions under which access is
   allowed.  Thus, when an LS is provided more than one policy document
   that applies to a given LO, it has been instructed to provide access
   when any of the rules apply.  That is, the "Union" policy is the
   default policy for an LS with multiple sources of policy.  An LS MAY
   choose to apply a more restrictive policy by ignoring some of the
   grants of permission in the privacy rules provided.  The
   "Intersection" policy and both "Override" policies listed above are
   of this latter character.

   Protocols that are used for managing rules should allow an RM to
   retrieve from the LS the set of rules that will ultimately be
   applied.  For example, in the basic HTTP-based protocol defined in
   [<a href="#ref-16" title="&quot;Location Configuration Extensions for Policy Management&quot;">16</a>], an RM can use a GET request to retrieve the policy being
   applied by the LS and a PUT request to specify new rules.




<span class="grey">Barnes, et al.            Best Current Practice                [Page 22]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-23" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6280">RFC 6280</a>             Internet Location Architecture            July 2011</span>


   Different policies may be applicable in different scenarios.  In
   cases where an external RM is more trusted than the source of the LO,
   the "RM Override" policy may be suitable (for example, if the
   external RM is the Target and the LO is provided by a third party).
   Conversely, the "LO Override" policy is better suited to cases where
   the LO provider is more trusted than the RM, for example, if the RM
   is the user of a mobile device LS and the LO contains Rules from the
   RM's parents or corporate security office.  The "Intersection" policy
   takes the strictest view of the permission grants, giving equal
   weight to all RMs (including the LO creator).

   Each of these policies will also have different privacy consequences.
   Following the "Intersection" policy ensures that the most privacy-
   protective subset of all RMs' rules will be followed.  The "Union"
   policy and both "Override" policies may defy the expectations of any
   RM (including, potentially, the Target) whose policy is not followed.
   For example, if a Target acting as an RM sets Rules and those Rules
   are overridden by the application of a more permissive LO Override
   policy that has been set by the Target's parent or employer acting as
   an RM, the retransmission or retention of the Target's data may come
   as a surprise to the Target.  For this reason, it is RECOMMENDED that
   LSes provide a way for RMs to be able to find out which policy will
   be applied to the distribution of a given LO.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2.5" href="#section-4.2.5">4.2.5</a>.  Security Considerations for Distribution</span>

   An LS's decisions about how to transmit a location are based on the
   identities of entities requesting information and other aspects of
   requests for a location.  In order to ensure that these decisions are
   made properly, the LS needs assurance of the reliability of
   information on the identities of the entities with which the LS
   interacts (including LRs, LSes, and RMs) and other information in the
   request.

   Protocols to convey LOs and protocols to convey Rules MUST provide
   information on the identity of the recipient of location information
   and the identity of the RM, respectively.  In order to ensure the
   validity of this information, these protocols MUST allow for mutual
   authentication of both parties, and MUST provide integrity protection
   for protocol messages.  These security features ensure that the LG
   has sufficient information (and sufficiently reliable information) to
   make privacy decisions.









<span class="grey">Barnes, et al.            Best Current Practice                [Page 23]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-24" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6280">RFC 6280</a>             Internet Location Architecture            July 2011</span>


   As they travel through the Internet, LOs necessarily pass through a
   sequence of intermediaries, ranging from layer-2 switches to IP
   routers to application-layer proxies and gateways.  The ability of an
   LS to protect privacy by making access control decisions is reduced
   if these intermediaries have access to an LO as it travels between
   privacy-preserving entities.

   Ideally, LOs SHOULD be transmitted with confidentiality protection
   end-to-end between an LS that transmits location information and the
   LR that receives it.  In some cases, the protocol conveying an LO
   provides confidentiality protection as a built-in security solution
   for its signaling (and potentially its data traffic).  In this case,
   carrying an unprotected LO within such an encrypted channel is
   sufficient.  Many protocols, however, are offering communication
   modes where messages are either unprotected or protected on a hop-by-
   hop basis (for example, between intermediaries in a store-and-forward
   protocol).  In such a case, it is RECOMMENDED that the protocol allow
   for the use of encrypted LOs, or for the transmission of a reference
   to a location in place of an LO [<a href="#ref-14" title="&quot;Requirements for a Location-by-Reference Mechanism&quot;">14</a>].

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.3" href="#section-4.3">4.3</a>.  Location Use</span>

   The primary privacy requirement of an LR is to constrain its usage of
   location information to the set of uses authorized by the Rules in an
   LO.  If an LR only uses an LO in ways that have minimal privacy
   impact -- specifically, if it does not transmit the LO to any other
   entity, and does not retain the LO for longer than is required to
   complete its interaction with the LS -- then no further action is
   necessary for the LR to comply with Geopriv requirements.

   As an example of this simplest case, if an LR (a) receives a
   location, (b) immediately provides to the Target information or a
   service based on the location, (c) does not retain the information,
   and (d) does not retransmit the location to any other entity, then
   the LR will comply with any set of Rules that are permissible under
   Geopriv.  Thus, a service that, for example, only provides directions
   to the closest bookstore in response to an input of a location, and
   promptly then discards the input location, will be in compliance with
   any Geopriv Rule set.

   LRs that make other uses of an LO (e.g., those that store LOs or send
   them to other service providers to obtain location-based services)
   MUST meet the requirements below to assure that these uses are
   authorized.







<span class="grey">Barnes, et al.            Best Current Practice                [Page 24]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-25" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6280">RFC 6280</a>             Internet Location Architecture            July 2011</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.3.1" href="#section-4.3.1">4.3.1</a>.  Privacy Considerations for Use</span>

   The principal privacy requirement for LRs is to follow usage rules.
   Any LR that wants to retransmit or retain the LO is REQUIRED to
   examine the rules included with that LO.  Any usage the LR makes of
   the LO MUST be explicitly authorized by these Rules.  Since Rules are
   positive grants of permission, any action not explicitly authorized
   is denied by default.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.3.2" href="#section-4.3.2">4.3.2</a>.  Security Considerations for Use</span>

   Since the LR role does not involve transmission of location
   information, there are no protocol security considerations required
   to support privacy, other than ensuring that data does not leak
   unintentionally due to security breaches.

   Aside from privacy, LRs often require some assurance that an LO is
   reliable (assurance of the integrity, authenticity, and validity of
   an LO), since LRs use LOs in order to deliver location-based
   services.  Threats against this reliability, and corresponding
   mitigations, are discussed in "Security Considerations" below.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>.  Security Considerations</span>

   Security considerations related to the privacy of LOs are discussed
   throughout this document.  In this section, we summarize those
   concerns and consider security risks not related to privacy.

   The life cycle of an LO often consists of a series of location
   transmissions.  Protocols that carry location information can provide
   strong assurances, but only for a single segment of the LO's life
   cycle.  In particular, a protocol can provide integrity protection
   and confidentiality for the data exchanged, and mutual authentication
   of the parties involved in the protocol, by using a secure transport
   such as IPSec [<a href="#ref-17" title="&quot;Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol&quot;">17</a>] or Transport Layer Security (TLS) [<a href="#ref-18" title="&quot;The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2&quot;">18</a>].

   Additionally, if (1) the protocol provides mutual authentication for
   every segment, and (2) every entity in the location distribution
   chain exchanges information only with entities with whom it has a
   trust relationship, entities can transitively obtain assurances
   regarding the origin and ultimate destination of the LO.  Of course,
   direct assurances are always preferred over assurances requiring
   transitive trust, since they require fewer assumptions.

   Using protocol mechanisms alone, the entities can receive assurances
   only about a single hop in the distribution chain.  For example,
   suppose that an LR receives location information from an LS over an
   integrity- and confidentiality-protected channel.  The LR knows that



<span class="grey">Barnes, et al.            Best Current Practice                [Page 25]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-26" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6280">RFC 6280</a>             Internet Location Architecture            July 2011</span>


   the transmitted LO has not been modified or observed en route.
   However, the assurances provided by the protocol do not guarantee
   that the transmitted LO was not corrupted before it was sent to the
   LS (by a previous LS, for example).  Likewise, the LR can verify that
   the LO was transmitted by the LS, but cannot verify the origin of the
   LO if it did not originate with the LS.

   Security mechanisms in protocols are thus unable to provide direct
   assurances over multiple transmissions of an LO.  However, the
   transmission of a location "by reference" can be used to effectively
   turn multi-hop paths into single-hop paths.  If the multiple
   transmissions of an LO are replaced by multiple transmissions of a
   URI (a multi-hop dissemination channel), the LO need only traverse a
   single hop, namely the dereference transaction between the LR and the
   dereference server.  The requirements for securing a location passed
   by reference [<a href="#ref-14" title="&quot;Requirements for a Location-by-Reference Mechanism&quot;">14</a>] are applicable in this case.

   The major threats to the security of LOs can be grouped into two
   categories.  First, threats against the integrity and authenticity of
   LOs can expose entities that rely on LOs.  Second, threats against
   the confidentiality of LOs can allow unauthorized access to location
   information.

   An LO contains four essential types of information: identifiers for
   the described Target, location information, timestamps, and Rules.
   By grouping values of these various types together within a single
   structure, an LO encodes a set of bindings among them.  That is, the
   LO asserts that the identified Target was present at the given
   location at the given time and that the given Rules express the
   Target's desired policy at that time for the distribution of his
   location.  Below, we provide a description of the assurances required
   by each party involved in the location distribution in order to
   mitigate the possible attacks on these bindings.

   Rule Maker:   The Rule Maker is responsible for creating the Target's
      Privacy Rules and for uploading them to the LSes.  The primary
      assurance required by the Rule Maker is that the Target's Privacy
      Rules are correctly associated with the Target's identity when
      they are conveyed to each LS that handles the LO.  Ensuring the
      integrity of the Privacy Rules distributed to the LSes prevents
      rule-tampering attacks.  In many circumstances, the privacy policy
      of the Target may itself be sensitive information; in these cases,
      the Rule Maker also requires the assurance that the binding
      between the Target's identity and the Target's Privacy Rules are
      not deducible by anyone other than an authorized LS.






<span class="grey">Barnes, et al.            Best Current Practice                [Page 26]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-27" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6280">RFC 6280</a>             Internet Location Architecture            July 2011</span>


   Location Server:   The Location Server is responsible for enforcing
      the Target's Privacy Rules.  The first assurance required by the
      LS is that the binding between the Target's Privacy Rules and the
      Target's identity is authentic.  Authenticating and authorizing
      the Rule Maker who creates, updates, and deletes the Privacy Rules
      prevents rule-tampering attacks.  The LS has to ensure that the
      authorization policies are not exposed to third parties, if so
      desired by the Rule Maker and when the rules themselves are
      privacy-sensitive.

   Location Recipient:   The Location Recipient is the consumer of the
      LO.  The LR thus requires assurances about the authenticity of the
      bindings between the Target's location, the Target's identity, and
      the time.  Ensuring the authenticity of these bindings helps to
      prevent various attacks, such as falsifying the location,
      modifying the timestamp, faking the identity, and replaying LOs.

   Location Generator:   The primary assurance required by the Location
      Generator is that the LS to which the LO is initially published is
      one that is trusted to enforce the Target's Privacy Rules.
      Authenticating the trusted LS mitigates the risk of server
      impersonation attacks.  Additionally, the LG is responsible for
      the location determination process, which is also sensible from a
      security perspective because wrong input provided by external
      entities can lead to undesirable disclosure or access to location
      information.

   Assurances as to the integrity and confidentiality of a Location
   Object can be provided directly through the LO format.  <a href="./rfc4119">RFC 4119</a> [<a href="#ref-19" title="&quot;A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object Format&quot;">19</a>]
   provides a description for the usage of Secure/Multipurpose Internet
   Mail Extensions (S/MIME) to integrity and confidentiality protection.
   Although such direct, end-to-end assurances are desirable, and these
   mechanisms should be used whenever possible, there are many
   deployment scenarios where directly securing an LO is impractical.
   For example, in some deployment scenarios a direct trust relationship
   may not exist between the creator of the Location Object and the
   recipient.  Additionally, in a scenario where many recipients are
   authorized to receive a given LO, the creator of the LO cannot
   guarantee end-to-end confidentiality without knowing precisely which
   recipient will receive the LO.  Many of these cases can, however, be
   addressed by the usage of a location-by-reference mechanism, possibly
   combined with an LO.









<span class="grey">Barnes, et al.            Best Current Practice                [Page 27]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-28" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6280">RFC 6280</a>             Internet Location Architecture            July 2011</span>


<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>.  Example Scenarios</span>

   This section contains a set of examples of how the Geopriv
   architecture can be deployed in practice.  These examples are meant
   to illustrate key points of the architecture, rather than to form an
   exhaustive set of use cases.

   For convenience and clarity in these examples, we assume that the
   Privacy Rules that an LO carries are equivalent to those in a
   Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO) [<a href="#ref-19" title="&quot;A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object Format&quot;">19</a>] --
   namely, that the principal Rules that can be set are limits on the
   retransmission and retention of the LO.  While these two Rules are
   the most well-known and important examples, the specific types of
   Rules an LS or LR must consider will in general depend on the types
   of LOs it processes.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.1" href="#section-6.1">6.1</a>.  Minimal Scenario</span>

   One of the simplest scenarios in the Geopriv architecture is when a
   Device determines its own location and uses that LO to request a
   service (e.g., by including the LO in an HTTP POST request [<a href="#ref-20" title="&quot;Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1&quot;">20</a>] or
   SIP INVITE message [<a href="#ref-21" title="&quot;SIP: Session Initiation Protocol&quot;">21</a>]), and the server delivers that service
   immediately (e.g., in a 200 OK response in HTTP or SIP), without
   retaining or retransmitting the Device's location.  The Device acts
   as an LG by using a Device-based positioning algorithm (e.g., manual
   entry) and as an LS by interpreting the rule and transmitting the LO.
   The Target acts as a Rule Maker by specifying that the location
   should be sent to the server.  The server acts as an LR by receiving
   and using the LO.

   In this case, the privacy of location information is maintained in
   two steps: The first step is that the location is only transmitted as
   directed by the single Rule Maker, namely the Target.  The second
   step is simply the fact that the server, as LR, does not do anything
   that creates a privacy risk -- it does not retain or retransmit the
   location.  Because the server limits its behavior in this way, it
   does not need to read the Rules in the LO, even though they were
   provided -- no Rule would prevent it from using the location in this
   safe manner.

   The following outline summarizes this scenario:

   o  Positioning: Device-based, Device=LG

   o  Distribution hop 1: HTTP User Agent (UA) --&gt; Ephemeral Web
      service, privacy via user indication





<span class="grey">Barnes, et al.            Best Current Practice                [Page 28]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-29" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6280">RFC 6280</a>             Internet Location Architecture            July 2011</span>


   o  Use: Ephemeral Web service delivers response without retaining or
      retransmitting location

   o  Key point:

      *  LRs that do not behave in ways that risk privacy are Geopriv-
         compliant by default.  No further action is necessary.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.2" href="#section-6.2">6.2</a>.  Location-Based Web Services</span>

   Many location-based services are delivered over the Web, using
   Javascript code to orchestrate a series of HTTP requests for
   location-specific information.  To support these applications,
   browser extensions have been developed that support Device-based
   positioning (manual entry and Global Positioning System (GPS)) and
   network-assisted positioning (via Assisted GPS (AGPS), and
   multilateration with 802.11 and cellular signals), exposing a
   location to Web pages through Javascript APIs.

   In this scenario, we consider a Target that uses a browser with a
   network-assisted positioning extension.  When the Target uses this
   browser to request location-based services from a Web page, the
   browser prompts the user to grant the page permission to access the
   user's location.  If the user grants permission, the browser
   extension sends 802.11 signal strength measurements to a positioning
   server, which then returns the position of the host.  The extension
   constructs an LO with this location and Rules set by the user, then
   passes the LO to the page through its Javascript API.  The page then
   obtains location-relevant information using an XMLHttpRequest [<a href="#ref-22" title="&quot;The XMLHttpRequest Object&quot;">22</a>] to
   a server in the same domain as the page and renders this information
   to the user.

   At first blush, this scenario seems much more complicated than the
   minimal scenario above.  However, most of the privacy considerations
   are actually the same.

   The positioning phase in this scenario begins when the browser
   extension contacts the positioning server.  The positioning server
   acts as an LG.

   The distribution phase actually occurs entirely within the Target
   host.  This phase begins when the positioning server, now acting as
   an LS, follows the LCP policy by providing the location only to the
   Target.  The next hop in distribution occurs when the browser
   extension (an entity under the control of the Target) passes an LO to
   the Web page (an entity under the control of its author).  In this
   phase, the browser extension acts as an LS, with the Target as the
   sole Rule Maker; the user interface for rule-making is effectively a



<span class="grey">Barnes, et al.            Best Current Practice                [Page 29]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-30" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6280">RFC 6280</a>             Internet Location Architecture            July 2011</span>


   protocol for conveying Rules, and the extension's API effectively
   defines a way to communicate LOs and an LO format.  The Web site acts
   as an LR when the Web page accepts the LO.

   The use phase encompasses the Web site's use of the LO.  In this
   context, the phrase "Web site" encompasses not only the Web page, but
   also the dedicated supporting logic behind it.  Considering the
   entire Web site as a recipient, rather than a single page, it becomes
   clear that sending the LO in an XMLHttpRequest to a back-end server
   is like passing it to a separate component of the LR, as opposed to
   retransmitting it to another entity.  Thus, even in this case, where
   location-relevant information is obtained from a back-end server, the
   LR does not retain or retransmit the location, so its behavior is
   "privacy-safe" -- it doesn't need to interpret the Rules in the LO.

   However, consider a variation on this scenario where the Web page
   requests additional information (a map, for instance) from a third-
   party site.  In this case, since location information is being
   transmitted to a third party, the Web site (either in the Web page or
   in a back-end server) would need to verify that this transmission is
   allowed by the LO's Privacy Rules.  Similarly, if the site wanted to
   log the user's location information, then it would need to examine
   the LO to determine how long this information can be retained.  In
   such a case, if the LR needs to do something that is not allowed by
   the Rules, it may have to deny service to the user, while hopefully
   providing a message with the reason.  Nonetheless, if the Rules
   permit retention or retransmission, even if this retransmission is
   limited by access control rules, then the LR may do so to the extent
   the Rules allow.

   The following outline summarizes this scenario:

   o  Positioning: Network-assisted, positioning server=LG

   o  Rule installation: RM (=Target) gives permission to sites and sets
      LO Rules

   o  Distribution hop 1: positioning server=LS --&gt; Target, privacy via
      LCP policy

   o  Distribution hop 2: Browser=LS --&gt; Web site=LR, privacy via user
      confirmation

   o  Use: Back-end server delivers location-relevant information
      without further retransmission, then deletes location; privacy via
      safe behavior





<span class="grey">Barnes, et al.            Best Current Practice                [Page 30]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-31" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6280">RFC 6280</a>             Internet Location Architecture            July 2011</span>


   o  Key points:

      *  Privacy in this scenario is provided by a combination of
         explicit user direction and Rules in an LO.

      *  Distribution can occur within a host, between components that
         do not trust each other.

      *  Some transmissions of the location are actually internal to
         an LR.

      *  LRs that do things that might be constrained by Rules need to
         verify that these actions are allowed for a particular LO.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.3" href="#section-6.3">6.3</a>.  Emergency Calling</span>

   Support for emergency calls by Voice-over-IP devices is a critical
   use case for location information about Internet hosts.  The details
   of the Internet architecture for emergency calling are described in
   [<a href="#ref-23" title="&quot;Framework for Emergency Calling Using Internet Multimedia&quot;">23</a>] [<a href="#ref-24" title="&quot;Best Current Practice for Communications Services in support of Emergency Calling&quot;">24</a>].  In this architecture, there are three critical steps in
   the placement of an emergency call, each involving location
   information:

   1.  Determine the location of the caller.

   2.  Determine the proper Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) for the
       caller's location.

   3.  Send a SIP INVITE message, including the caller's location, to
       the PSAP.

   The first step in an emergency call is to determine the location of
   the caller.  This step is the positioning phase of the location life
   cycle.  The location is determined by whatever means are available to
   the caller's device, or to the network, if this step is being done by
   a proxy.  The entity doing the positioning, whether the caller or a
   proxy, acts as an LS, preserving the privacy of location information
   by only including it in emergency calls.

   The second step in an emergency call encompasses location
   distribution and use.  The entity that is routing the emergency call
   sends location information through the Location-to-Service
   Translation (LoST) Protocol [<a href="#ref-15" title="&quot;LoST: A Location-to-Service Translation Protocol&quot;">15</a>] to a mapping server.  In this role,
   the routing entity acts as an LS and the LoST server acts as an LR.
   The LO format within LoST does not allow Rules to be sent along with
   the location, but because LoST is an application-specific protocol,
   the sending of the location within a LoST message authorizes the LoST
   server to use the location to complete the protocol, namely to route



<span class="grey">Barnes, et al.            Best Current Practice                [Page 31]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-32" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6280">RFC 6280</a>             Internet Location Architecture            July 2011</span>


   the message as necessary through the LoST mapping architecture [<a href="#ref-25" title="&quot;Location-to-URL Mapping Architecture and Framework&quot;">25</a>].
   That is, the LoST server is authorized to complete the LoST protocol,
   but to do nothing else.

   The third step in an emergency call is again a combination of
   distribution and use.  The caller, or another entity that inserts the
   caller's location, acts as an LS, and the PSAP acts as an LR.  In
   this specific example, the caller's location is transmitted either as
   a PIDF-LO or as a reference that returns a PIDF-LO, or both; in the
   latter case, the reference should be appropriately protected so that
   only the PSAP has access.  In any case, the receipt of an LO implies
   that the PSAP should obey the Rules in those LOs in order to preserve
   privacy.  Depending on the regulatory environment, the PSAP may have
   the option to ignore those constraints in order to respond to an
   emergency, or it may be bound to respect these Rules in spite of the
   emergency situation.

   The following outline summarizes this scenario:

   o  Positioning: Any

   o  Distribution/use hop 1: Target=LS --&gt; LoST infrastructure (no
      Rules), privacy via authorization implicit in protocol

   o  Distribution/use hop 2: Target=LS --&gt; PSAP, privacy via Rules
      in LO

   o  Use: PSAP uses location to deliver emergency services

   o  Key points:

      *  Privacy in this scenario is provided by a combination of
         explicit user direction, implicit authorization particular to a
         protocol, and Rules in an LO.

      *  LRs may be constrained to respect or ignore Privacy Rules by
         local regulation.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.4" href="#section-6.4">6.4</a>.  Combination of Services</span>

   In modern Internet applications, users frequently receive information
   via one channel and broadcast it via another.  In this sense, both
   users and channels (e.g., Web services) become LSes.  Here we
   consider a more complex example that illustrates this pattern across
   multiple logical hops.






<span class="grey">Barnes, et al.            Best Current Practice                [Page 32]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-33" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6280">RFC 6280</a>             Internet Location Architecture            July 2011</span>


   Suppose Alice as the Target subscribes to a wireless ISP that
   determines her location using a network-based positioning technique,
   e.g., via the location of the base station serving the Target, and
   provides that information directly to a location-enhanced presence
   provider.  This presence provider might use SIP, the Extensible
   Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) [<a href="#ref-26" title="&quot;Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Core&quot;">26</a>], or another protocol).
   The location-enhanced presence provider allows Alice to specify Rules
   for how this location is distributed: which friends should receive
   Alice's location and what Rules they should get with it.  Alice uses
   a few other location-enhanced services as well, so she sends Rules
   that allow her location to be shared with those services, and that
   allow those services to retain and retransmit her location.

   Bob is one of Alice's friends, and he receives her location via this
   location-enhanced presence service.  Noting that she's at their
   favorite coffee shop, Bob wants to upload a photo of the two of them
   at the coffee shop to a photo-sharing site, along with an LO that
   marks the location.  Bob checks the Rules in Alice's LO and verifies
   that the photo-sharing site is one of the services that Alice
   authorized.  Seeing that Alice has authorized him to give the LO to
   the photo-sharing site, he attaches it to the photo and uploads it.

   Once the geo-tagged photo is uploaded, the photo-sharing site reads
   the Rules in the LO and verifies that the site is authorized to store
   the photo and to share it with others.  Since Alice has allowed the
   site to retransmit and retain without any constraints, the site
   fulfills Bob's request to make the geo-tagged photo publicly
   accessible.

   Eve, another user of the photo-sharing site, downloads the photo of
   Alice and Bob at the coffee shop and receives Alice's LO along with
   it.  Eve posts the photo and location to her public page on a social
   networking site without checking the Rules, even though the LO
   doesn't allow Eve to send the location anywhere else.  The social
   networking site, however, observes that no retransmission or
   retention are allowed, both of which it needs for a public posting,
   and rejects the upload.

   In terms of the location life cycle, this scenario consists of a
   positioning step, followed by four distribution hops and use.
   Positioning is the simplest step: An LG in Alice's ISP monitors her
   location and transmits it to the presence service, maintaining
   privacy by only transmitting the location information to a single
   entity to which Alice has delegated privacy responsibilities.







<span class="grey">Barnes, et al.            Best Current Practice                [Page 33]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-34" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6280">RFC 6280</a>             Internet Location Architecture            July 2011</span>


   The first distribution hop occurs when the presence server sends the
   location to Bob.  In this transaction, the presence server acts as an
   LS, Alice acts as an RM, and Bob acts as an LR.  The privacy of this
   transaction is assured by the fact that Alice has installed Rules on
   the presence server that dictate who it may allow to access her
   location.  The second distribution hop is when Bob uploads the LO to
   the photo-sharing site.  Here Bob acts as an LS, preserving the
   privacy of location information by verifying that the Rules in the LO
   allow him to upload it.  The third distribution hop is when the
   photo-sharing site sends the LO to Eve, likewise following the Rules
   -- but a different set of Rules than for Bob, since an LO can specify
   different Rule sets for different LSes.

   Eve is the fourth LS in the chain, and fails to comply with Geopriv
   by not checking the Rules in the LO prior to uploading the LO to the
   social networking site.  The site, however, is a responsible LR -- it
   checks the Rules in the LO, sees that they don't allow it to use the
   location as it needs to, and discards the LO.

   The following outline summarizes this scenario:

   o  Positioning: Network-based, LG in network, privacy via exclusive
      relationship with presence service

   o  Distribution/use hop 1: Presence server --&gt; Bob, privacy via
      Alice's access control rules

   o  Distribution/use hop 2: Bob --&gt; photo-sharing site, privacy via
      Rules for Bob in LO

   o  Distribution/use hop 3: Photo-sharing site --&gt; Eve, privacy via
      Rules for site in LO

   o  Distribution/use hop 4: Eve --&gt; Social networking site, violates
      privacy by retransmitting

   o  Use: Social networking site, privacy via checking Rules and
      discarding

   o  Key points:

      *  Privacy can be preserved through multiple hops.

      *  An LO can specify different Rules for different entities.

      *  An LS can still disobey the Rules, but even then, the
         architecture still works in some cases.




<span class="grey">Barnes, et al.            Best Current Practice                [Page 34]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-35" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6280">RFC 6280</a>             Internet Location Architecture            July 2011</span>


<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-7" href="#section-7">7</a>.  Glossary</span>

   Various security-related terms not defined here are to be understood
   in the sense defined in <a href="./rfc4949">RFC 4949</a> [<a href="#ref-27" title="&quot;Internet Security Glossary, Version 2&quot;">27</a>].

   $ Access Control Rule

      A rule that describes which entities may receive location
      information and in what form.

   $ civic location

      The geographic position of an entity in terms of a postal address
      or civic landmark.  Examples of such data are room number, street
      number, street name, city, postal code, county, state, and
      country.

   $ Device

      The physical device, such as a mobile phone, PC, or embedded
      micro-controller, whose location is tracked as a proxy for the
      location of a Target.

   $ geodetic location

      The geographic position of an entity in a particular coordinate
      system, for example, a latitude-longitude pair.

   $ Local Rule

      A Privacy Rule that directs a Location Server about how to treat a
      Target's location information.  Local Rules are used internally by
      a Location Server to handle requests from Location Recipients.
      They are not distributed to Location Recipients.

   $ Location Generator (LG)

      Performs the role of initially determining or gathering the
      location of a Target.  Location Generators may be any sort of
      software or hardware used to obtain a Target's location.  Examples
      include GPS chips and cellular networks.










<span class="grey">Barnes, et al.            Best Current Practice                [Page 35]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-36" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6280">RFC 6280</a>             Internet Location Architecture            July 2011</span>


   $ Location Information Server (LIS)

      An entity responsible for providing devices within an access
      network with information about their own locations.  A Location
      Information Server uses knowledge of the access network and its
      physical topology to generate and distribute location information
      to devices.

   $ Location Object (LO)

      A data unit that conveys location information together with
      Privacy Rules within the Geopriv architecture.  A Location Object
      may convey geodetic location data (latitude, longitude, altitude),
      civic location data (street, city, state, etc.), or both.

   $ Location Recipient (LR)

      An ultimate end-point entity to which a Location Object is
      distributed.  Location Recipients request location information
      about a particular Target from a Location Server.  If allowed by
      the appropriate Privacy Rules, a Location Recipient will receive
      Location Objects describing the Target's location from the
      Location Server.

   $ Location Server (LS)

      An entity that receives Location Objects from Location Generators,
      Privacy Rules from Rule Makers, and location requests from
      Location Recipients.  A Location Server applies the appropriate
      Privacy Rules to a Location Object received from a Location
      Generator and may disclose the Location Object, in compliance with
      the Rules, to Location Recipients.

      Location Servers may not necessarily be "servers" in the
      colloquial sense of hosts in remote data centers servicing
      requests.  Rather, a Location Server can be any software or
      hardware component that receives and distributes location
      information.  Examples include a positioning server (with a
      location interface) in an access network, a presence server, or
      a Web browser or other software running on a Target's device.











<span class="grey">Barnes, et al.            Best Current Practice                [Page 36]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-37" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6280">RFC 6280</a>             Internet Location Architecture            July 2011</span>


   $ Privacy Rule

      A directive that regulates an entity's activities with respect to
      a Target's location information, including the collection, use,
      disclosure, and retention of the location information.  Privacy
      Rules describe how location information may be used by an entity,
      the level of detail with which location information may be
      described to an entity, and the conditions under which location
      information may be disclosed to an entity.  Privacy Rules are
      communicated from Rule Makers to Location Servers and conveyed in
      Location Objects throughout the Geopriv architecture.

   $ Rule

      See Privacy Rule.

   $ Rule Maker (RM)

      An individual or entity that is authorized to set Privacy Rules
      for a Target.  In some cases, a Rule Maker and a Target will be
      the same individual or entity, and in other cases they will be
      separate.  For example, a parent may serve as the Rule Maker when
      the Target is his child.  The Rule Maker is also not necessarily
      the owner of a Target device.  For example, a corporation may own
      a device that it provides to an employee but permit the employee
      to serve as the Rule Maker and set her own Privacy Rules.  Rule
      Makers provide the Privacy Rules associated with a Target to
      Location Servers.

   $ Forwarded Rule

      A Privacy Rule that travels inside a Location Object.  Forwarded
      Rules direct Location Recipients about how to handle the location
      information they receive.  Because the Forwarded Rules themselves
      may reveal potentially sensitive information about a Target, only
      the minimal subset of Forwarded Rules necessary for a Location
      Recipient to handle a Location Object is distributed to the
      Location Recipient.

   $ Target

      An individual or other entity whose location is sought in the
      Geopriv architecture.  In many cases, the Target will be the human
      user of a Device, or it may be an object such as a vehicle or
      shipping container to which a Device is attached.  In some
      instances, the Target will be the Device itself.  The Target is
      the entity whose privacy Geopriv seeks to protect.




<span class="grey">Barnes, et al.            Best Current Practice                [Page 37]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-38" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6280">RFC 6280</a>             Internet Location Architecture            July 2011</span>


   $ Usage Rule

      A rule that describes what uses of location information are
      authorized.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-8" href="#section-8">8</a>.  Acknowledgements</span>

   <a href="#section-5">Section 5</a> is largely based on the security investigations conducted
   as part of the Geopriv Layer-7 Location Configuration Protocol design
   team, which produced [<a href="#ref-9" title="&quot;GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol: Problem Statement and Requirements&quot;">9</a>].  We would like to thank all the members of
   the design team.

   We would also like to thank Marc Linsner and Martin Thomson for their
   contributions regarding terminology and LCPs.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-9" href="#section-9">9</a>.  References</span>

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-9.1" href="#section-9.1">9.1</a>.  Normative References</span>

   [<a id="ref-1">1</a>]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
         Levels", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a>, March 1997.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-9.2" href="#section-9.2">9.2</a>.  Informative References</span>

   [<a id="ref-2">2</a>]   Cuellar, J., Morris, J., Mulligan, D., Peterson, J., and J.
         Polk, "Geopriv Requirements", <a href="./rfc3693">RFC 3693</a>, February 2004.

   [<a id="ref-3">3</a>]   Danley, M., Mulligan, D., Morris, J., and J. Peterson, "Threat
         Analysis of the Geopriv Protocol", <a href="./rfc3694">RFC 3694</a>, February 2004.

   [<a id="ref-4">4</a>]   U.S. Department of Defense, "National Industrial Security
         Program Operating Manual", DoD 5220-22M, January 1995.

   [<a id="ref-5">5</a>]   Winterbottom, J., Thomson, M., and H. Tschofenig, "GEOPRIV
         Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO)
         Usage Clarification, Considerations, and Recommendations",
         <a href="./rfc5491">RFC 5491</a>, March 2009.

   [<a id="ref-6">6</a>]   Schulzrinne, H., Tschofenig, H., Morris, J., Cuellar, J., Polk,
         J., and J. Rosenberg, "Common Policy: A Document Format for
         Expressing Privacy Preferences", <a href="./rfc4745">RFC 4745</a>, February 2007.

   [<a id="ref-7">7</a>]   Schulzrinne, H., Ed., Tschofenig, H., Ed., Morris, J., Cuellar,
         J., and J. Polk, "Geolocation Policy: A Document Format for
         Expressing Privacy Preferences for Location Information", Work
         in Progress, March 2011.





<span class="grey">Barnes, et al.            Best Current Practice                [Page 38]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-39" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6280">RFC 6280</a>             Internet Location Architecture            July 2011</span>


   [<a id="ref-8">8</a>]   Rosenberg, J., "The Extensible Markup Language (XML)
         Configuration Access Protocol (XCAP)", <a href="./rfc4825">RFC 4825</a>, May 2007.

   [<a id="ref-9">9</a>]   Tschofenig, H. and H. Schulzrinne, "GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location
         Configuration Protocol: Problem Statement and Requirements",
         <a href="./rfc5687">RFC 5687</a>, March 2010.

   [<a id="ref-10">10</a>]  Polk, J., Schnizlein, J., and M. Linsner, "Dynamic Host
         Configuration Protocol Option for Coordinate-based Location
         Configuration Information", <a href="./rfc3825">RFC 3825</a>, July 2004.

   [<a id="ref-11">11</a>]  Schulzrinne, H., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4
         and DHCPv6) Option for Civic Addresses Configuration
         Information", <a href="./rfc4776">RFC 4776</a>, November 2006.

   [<a id="ref-12">12</a>]  Polk, J., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) IPv4 and
         IPv6 Option for a Location Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)",
         Work in Progress, February 2011.

   [<a id="ref-13">13</a>]  Barnes, M., Ed., "HTTP-Enabled Location Delivery (HELD)",
         <a href="./rfc5985">RFC 5985</a>, September 2010.

   [<a id="ref-14">14</a>]  Marshall, R., Ed., "Requirements for a Location-by-Reference
         Mechanism", <a href="./rfc5808">RFC 5808</a>, May 2010.

   [<a id="ref-15">15</a>]  Hardie, T., Newton, A., Schulzrinne, H., and H. Tschofenig,
         "LoST: A Location-to-Service Translation Protocol", <a href="./rfc5222">RFC 5222</a>,
         August 2008.

   [<a id="ref-16">16</a>]  Barnes, R., Thomson, M., Winterbottom, J., and H. Tschofenig,
         "Location Configuration Extensions for Policy Management", Work
         in Progress, June 2011.

   [<a id="ref-17">17</a>]  Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the Internet
         Protocol", <a href="./rfc4301">RFC 4301</a>, December 2005.

   [<a id="ref-18">18</a>]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security (TLS)
         Protocol Version 1.2", <a href="./rfc5246">RFC 5246</a>, August 2008.

   [<a id="ref-19">19</a>]  Peterson, J., "A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object
         Format", <a href="./rfc4119">RFC 4119</a>, December 2005.

   [<a id="ref-20">20</a>]  Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter, L.,
         Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol --
         HTTP/1.1", <a href="./rfc2616">RFC 2616</a>, June 1999.






<span class="grey">Barnes, et al.            Best Current Practice                [Page 39]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-40" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6280">RFC 6280</a>             Internet Location Architecture            July 2011</span>


   [<a id="ref-21">21</a>]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A.,
         Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP:
         Session Initiation Protocol", <a href="./rfc3261">RFC 3261</a>, June 2002.

   [<a id="ref-22">22</a>]  World Wide Web Consortium, "The XMLHttpRequest Object", W3C
         document <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/">http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/</a>, August 2010.

   [<a id="ref-23">23</a>]  Rosen, B., Schulzrinne, H., Polk, J., and A. Newton, "Framework
         for Emergency Calling Using Internet Multimedia", Work
         in Progress, October 2010.

   [<a id="ref-24">24</a>]  Rosen, B. and J. Polk, "Best Current Practice for
         Communications Services in support of Emergency Calling", Work
         in Progress, March 2011.

   [<a id="ref-25">25</a>]  Schulzrinne, H., "Location-to-URL Mapping Architecture and
         Framework", <a href="./rfc5582">RFC 5582</a>, September 2009.

   [<a id="ref-26">26</a>]  Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol
         (XMPP): Core", <a href="./rfc6120">RFC 6120</a>, March 2011.

   [<a id="ref-27">27</a>]  Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2", FYI 36,
         <a href="./rfc4949">RFC 4949</a>, August 2007.

   [<a id="ref-28">28</a>]  &lt;<a href="http://creativecommons.org/">http://creativecommons.org/</a>&gt;

Authors' Addresses

   Richard Barnes
   BBN Technologies
   9861 Broken Land Pkwy, Suite 400
   Columbia, MD  21046
   USA

   Phone: +1 410 290 6169
   EMail: rbarnes@bbn.com


   Matt Lepinski
   BBN Technologies
   10 Moulton St.
   Cambridge, MA  02138
   USA

   Phone: +1 617 873 5939
   EMail: mlepinski@bbn.com





<span class="grey">Barnes, et al.            Best Current Practice                [Page 40]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-41" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6280">RFC 6280</a>             Internet Location Architecture            July 2011</span>


   Alissa Cooper
   Center for Democracy &amp; Technology
   1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
   Washington, DC
   USA

   EMail: acooper@cdt.org


   John Morris
   Center for Democracy &amp; Technology
   1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
   Washington, DC
   USA

   EMail: jmorris@cdt.org


   Hannes Tschofenig
   Nokia Siemens Networks
   Linnoitustie 6
   Espoo  02600
   Finland

   Phone: +358 (50) 4871445
   EMail: Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net
   URI:   <a href="http://www.tschofenig.priv.at">http://www.tschofenig.priv.at</a>


   Henning Schulzrinne
   Columbia University
   Department of Computer Science
   450 Computer Science Building
   New York, NY  10027
   US

   Phone: +1 212 939 7004
   EMail: hgs@cs.columbia.edu
   URI:   <a href="http://www.cs.columbia.edu">http://www.cs.columbia.edu</a>












Barnes, et al.            Best Current Practice                [Page 41]
</pre>